As a Bristol City fan living in Australia, I watched the game live down here, and here are my thoughts Maguire is a very lucky boy he did not get a straight red for a very cynical foul first half. We were poor today, we seemed to hoof it long to often, particularly second half. You had so much possession, but tbh very little threat. Worrying when you were so on top second half. Thought Hudds was OK, not as bad as you are making out, however, we were very poor in the middle, Freeman who is usually very creative was poor, and Pack was MIA. I think you will be there or there abouts come May, your possession and ball retention was first class, and as many have said, on another day you would have won, and I am sure you will again. As for us, we will and and already have played better than this and lose at some point this season, so for us a great and very welcome point. I wish you well for the remainder of the season.
I know I'm blaming Bruce, which is unusual for me. I wouldnt have brought Aluko on either. That finish of his where it trickled to the keeper. I've seen that same thing happen with him plenty of times. Its like he cant hit a ball on the run. I saw Aluko for the ressies and he was poor then, Bruce wasnt there. His report on Aluko would be played and scored. He was ****e. Even if Aluko's volley hadda gone in and we'd won with Hudd in the team I would want Hayden in for Derby instead of him.
We all see it different, we'd all do it different ......... that's why we love/hate this game. I like Aluko but, for him to start shining again I think he's a man who needs a run of games to regain his sharpness, he's certainly no ''off the bench'' super-sub and, I don't think he's gonna get a run of games either.
Sometimes good players don't fit in certain teams and Huddlestone is that sort of player at City. Nobody can doubt his abilities, but he is a slow ponderous player in a team that works best when pushing forward with pace and fluidity. A few players had an off day today (I hate ****ing international breaks). Huddlestone can't be blamed for that, but like others have said his style negatively changes the dynamic of how the team plays.
What a load of bollocks that is; what's this agenda then? Hudds is a good player, many of us, if not all of us have said that. What some of us have also said - some for longer than others, which might indicate a view is being drawn on evidence and not knee-jerk reaction - that his style of football is incompatible to that of his team-mates. First ten games we struggled to string some decent football together, the sort that should have reflected the quality of the players we have. After a while Hudds was dropped and the football started to come together, today he came back and it disappeared. That was no coincidence. Folk say the other players had poor games, and they did, didn't they; just like they did when Hudds started previously. No coincidence. The tempo changes, the partnerships change, the links and running loses direction and fluidity. Bristol battled, but we were better in every department except goalkeeper, we had ownership for most of the game, but we lost the thrust, we lost the pace of attack that wears down defences - we have that without Hudds, but it's not his style, he's an accurate, deliberate passer, he likes space and vision, he doesn't gamble. That doesn't make him a bad player, he is far from that, but it does make him a round peg in a square hole. Bruce gets paid to match pegs and holes and he just doesn't and hasn't done for quite a while. I was happy with the team, as it is what we had; yes, we could have played Hayden, but we should still have won but for their keeper and a couple of weak efforts - without Hudds change of tempo I think the lads would have kicked on and won at a canter. But that's my opinion, not an agenda.
There are two paragraphs, it's the end of a long day and it isn't any worse than much on here. Why take the trouble to reply, seems pathetic to me? Someone else read it and liked it, each to their own. Skip my posts, that's fine by me.
We are always governed by results. If we had won 3-1 which would of been about right the huddlestone debate would not of arose . Can see both sides of the debate. Perhaps Brucie needs to show his team how to head a ball in the net from 2 yards out. actually conecting with it would be a start.
Fully agree Fez. I asked where were the partnerships, a question that the soothsayers still haven't responded to, and stated the clearly obvious fact that Huddlestone alters the dynamic and balance of our side. The response? I have an agenda against him. You couldn't make it up.
Er, in order to change your behaviour so that more people will read your posts in future? Shame you chose not to take the valid point on board and got offended instead.
Had Hernandez played, I expect we'd have won comfortably, but I think the Huddlestone debate would have happened regardless.
Not really. Huddlestone is a liability defensively as well, we went one down and had several other occasions in the first half where they broke easily past the slower midfield. They could have had more than one goal. Because of the pressure on the defence we could have ended up having a player sent off too. Going one down is a big thing in football. It's still possible to win, but the chances of that are greatly reduced. Away from home as well, their crowd will get more confidence. Bruce needs to get the team right from the start and them ready to fight from then too, otherwise it can leave a mountain to climb. Bruce doesn't really set the team up to come from behind and win, so your hypothetical 3-1 win is unlikely.
Its a fair point re Brucie and his tactics. My assumption was based on The 2 sitters we missed and Jakes goal bound shot cleared of the line. As the top team in the div it was 2 points dropped against a team we should beat. Re TH its clear the man has talent but we are different with him in the team ie less fluent.
Of course it would, because he negatively alters our playing style, the dynamic and balance of the side. Something that some are, quite unbelievably, failing to recognise. Have you got an agenda Lambo?
No, it's coincidence. Thudd has absolutely **** all to do with how Robbo and Clucas link up down the left, or Elmo and Dave down the right. Those two wide partnerships blossoming is probably the biggest factor in our better performances of late. They were non existent yesterday. Thudd has **** all to do with Diame and Akpom playing together, Diame was next to useless most thebgame, holding on to the ball to long, running into players and giving it away cheaply. He should have been getting in the box to support Akpom but he kept going in search of the ball. Thudd had **** all to do with Akpom being a weak as piss non entity up front. We may as well have started with 10 men, Akpom was that much use. Jake was crap, again, how can Thudd cause Jake to keep losing out on 50/50 balls or sloppy passes straight to the opposition. Huddlestone being in the team caused absolutely non of that, and he didn't slow down the tempo at any time yesterday. He's the new boo boy who everyone likes to blame everything on, and quite frankly it's just ****ing pathetic how our fans always have to single a player out.
